I have to wonder... are people here serious that a musician's art is
entirely independant of the artist? I think this is a pivotal notion and
one that is not only central to the little Moby issue, but also to the big
Detroit issue. The intent, background, motivation, influences drawn upon by
an artist are all, in my opinion, integral to the art itself. To argue that
the only true measure and value of a song is the given listener's first or
even ongoing impression seems to negate these factors.
Music made for people by people. Take out the interpreters (both performers
*and* audience) and you've got a tree falling in a forest.
What do you all think?
ps What is this purist thing anyhow? Does this apply to other genres of
music? Does this mean that some things are good unless you actually care?
From: "darw_n" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jongsma, K.J." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <313@hyperreal.org>
Subject: Re: [313] Let's Talk Techno
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 13:04:35 -0700
>For the 'techno-purists' amongst us Moby will never be real.
> For others who aren't so purist-like really don't care that much.
>
I was simply waiting for that to be stated, and I apologize now for the
length, this field is a passion of mine, and I enjoy testing new theories
in
debate...
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
